The East in a Central Powers Victory

It took multiple preconditions for Hitler to rise to power. You are correct in identifying that without the Great Depression, you don't get the second radicalization of the voters that allows Hitler to rise to power. However, the Great Depression was largely inevitable after WW1 due to how the war was financed. Debt acts as money. As the war bonds of the UK and USA are defaulted on, the money supply greatly contracts, causing a severe recession. The Great Depression was the final bust after the boom of WW1.

Also, for the Nazi's to arise in the 1930's, the ground work for the party structure has to be laid in the 1920's. Without this base, the rise to power would have been too steep. You seem to have a view of History where the Nazi's arose from no where after October 1929. In fact, the rise of Nazism was do to a long series of events and work performed over the 1920's and 1930's, not a 5 year rise.

And the "stabbed in back" was an important part of Nazi philosophy. A victory parade in Berlin would change the philosophy of the Nazi's and eliminate a key component of their doctrine. The harsh but unenforced ToV makes WW1, part 2 almost inevitable. It could easily have had different leaders, and it could have easily had a lower death total, but we would have had a war. And people before the ToV in positions of great power and influence say this war in advance. Hitler deserves the blame for the specific actions that lead to the WW2 from OTL. The ToV leaders deserve the blame for setting up a situation where a second war of some kind was almost inevitable.

Except that in reality Hitler wasn't alone in initiating WWII. Japan's war in Asia came first, for reasons with no connection whatsoever to Versailles, though actually connected to WWI in an entirely different fashion. Stalin's actions were motivated by the collapse of his first attempts to form alliances against Germany and by the ever-present Soviet desire to regain areas of the old Tsarist Empire and get revenge on the Whites. There is a certain chain of causation from the Treaty of Rapallo to the Soviet-Nazi alliance in WWII, but that was not a product of Versailles. At the same time arguments about Nazism in any TL where the CP do win won't be logically coherent, because that movement won't exist in an OTL fashion. Germany will be the real hegemon in the region, and real German imperialism will trump fears of a potential Soviet/revived Russian Empire any day of the week.
 
Okay, my concerns are twofold: as of July 31, 1914, the Kaiser invoked the state of siege law which essentially suspended much of the German constitution, at the discretion of local military commanders. Among the suspended rights: the right to be free from search and seizure, freedom of speech, etc. So the simplest thing to do would be to simply invoke the law in the new territories to avoid judicial challenges.
Yes, that could work. But there would still be a problem to find the German settlers. In the book you linked (interesting read by the way), it is mentioned that they wanted to settle the dispossessed Russian Germans there. But as long as the Reichstag has something to say in this matter, I foresee some serious resistance to this project. But you have good points ther. Considering them I find it difficult to predict an accurate outcome here.
I'm also not sure you'd avoid a stab in the back myth here. Suppose it's 1932, and Germany's been hit with a recession while *Russia is rearming and industrializing. The Austrians have either collapsed or definitely on life support, and the Anglo-American (I think with a CP victory the US would be more interventionist overseas) alliance is making Germany . . . unhapy.

I can easily see the Pan-germanists accusing lefties of losing the peace.
In case of a hard hitting depression they will do that. But that would be rather late for a decision regarding the border strip. And I have some doubts it would get hard enough to have a similar rise to power for the Nazis.
See, I think this ignores the presence of many right wing freikorps in this period.

You keep talking about the safer and more rational path. I agree these are the more rational solutions. But the German elite were not being safe nor were they rational; they opposed universal suffrage until the bitter end; they couldn't create a Polish kingdom because i would have required giving some recognition to Polish aspirations (which is why the Poles complained they got a state with unknown frontiers, an unknown government, an unknown constitution, and a kingdom without a king).

I disagree; you could have had a far less worse depression in Germany if Bruning had not intentionally pursued deflationary policies and austerity policies as part of a bid to get rid of reparations.

In 1928, the Nazis got 2.8% of the vote. This is not a sign they were doing well before the Depression, IMO.
Agree on all of these points.
It is historical fact that they arose from 12 to 105 Reichstag seats in 1930, the first elections since Oct 1929.

Did the dolchstoss suddenly influence hugely more voters in 1930 than it had in 1928?
Yes, that is what I am talking about all the time. Could not agree more.

Kind regards,
G.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Okay, my concerns are twofold: as of July 31, 1914, the Kaiser invoked the state of siege law which essentially suspended much of the German constitution, at the discretion of local military commanders. Among the suspended rights: the right to be free from search and seizure, freedom of speech, etc. So the simplest thing to do would be to simply invoke the law in the new territories to avoid judicial challenges.

We don't see the Germany military doing these wide spread population moves IOTL with military means, and this makes it less likely they do it post war. And there was a good rational for not doing the moves, the people to be moved in did not exist. All the Polish Border strip does is create a world class game reserve in Central Europe.

Well, Warburg was a Hamburg banker, not exactly a Prussian junker. And Brest-Litovsk was approved by the Reichstag.

You logic appears to be that because a Hamburg banker and many Prussian officers believe it, the majority of Germany believed it. It is clear the voters of the Catholic parties and the Polish parties would never support this idea.


There were lots of plans including multiple versions of the border strip. There was a plan to count Jews as Germans and annex the Jewish Plurality areas. Yes, the Polish border strip has supporters, but it will not happen for two reasons. One, the Reichstag will vote down. Two, it will not work. All that expelling the Poles will do is created abandoned farmland and cities. There is no one to move to the areas of German or near German ethnicity.

Short of victory in 1916, I think Falkenhayn is going. The foreign office, the officers on the western front, the chancellor, and the military cabinet were all opposed to him by this point. It's also not clear to me that the Germans thought hey were losing at this point, as their proposed peaces suggest.

Verdun last almost all year, are you saying that they were looking to replace Falkenhayn in Feb 1916?

Until General Secretary Trotsky uses the power of the atom to free europe from the Hunnish yoke!

This is why I wrote "near" worst case. I can write a TL where we skip WW1 or modify WW2 and we open with a nuclear or biological exchange.

You keep talking about the safer and more rational path. I agree these are the more rational solutions. But the German elite were not being safe nor were they rational; they opposed universal suffrage until the bitter end; they couldn't create a Polish kingdom because i would have required giving some recognition to Polish aspirations (which is why the Poles complained they got a state with unknown frontiers, an unknown government, an unknown constitution, and a kingdom without a king).

IOTL, we see moderation and rationality. There is no mass ethnic cleansing in Poland. Finland had a King that looks acceptable to the Finns who generally seem more OK with the Germans than Soviets. We see attempts to make a workable, pro-German Balkans. Even the Polish Border strip plans accepts their will be a Polish state.

In 1928, the Nazis got 2.8% of the vote. This is not a sign they were doing well before the Depression, IMO.

It was a two stage process, building the party, then becoming a plurality. It would not be doable in 5 years alone. And without the ToV, we skip the worst of the hyper inflation, ruhr occupation, so we have a less radical electorate. There are too many butterflies to see Hitler and the Nazi politically inactive in the 1920's then to spring to power in a few short years after the USA stock market crashed. It is not the ToV made Hitler evil or a good campaigner. It is the ToV setup an electorate that Hitler could move to his message.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It is historical fact that they arose from 12 to 105 Reichstag seats in 1930, the first elections since Oct 1929.

Did the dolchstoss suddenly influence hugely more voters in 1930 than it had in 1928?

Without the ToV and the problems of the 1920's, the Nazi would not be a minor party ready to take the next step. With the 1920's, the Germany voters are unlikely to be radicalized enough to vote for the Nazi in such large numbers if the party is in exactly the same position as OTL.

Think of terms of Russia. The Tsar in no way was trying to help communists. But if the Tsar had merely been competent, the communist would have never had the chance to take power. The ToV and the 1920's serve the same function in Germany. They lay the groundwork for a talented politician and party to capitalize on. By your logic of looking at popular support and discounting events before a party gains double digit support, the actions of the Tsars had no bearing on Lenin's ability to rise to power.

The Tsar incompetence created the opportunity that Lenin capitalized on. The ToV and the economic woes of the 1920's gave Hitler a second shot. Without the hyper inflation and associated economic woes, Hitler would just be a violent felon from Austria. He likely still tries to rise to power, but he also likely fails. The Nazi party would only be remember by German political history buffs. Or Hitler might have never even been able to gain enough followers to try the first coup.
 
The similarities continue in that both Hitler and Lenin promptly had the majority of groups which had done all the actual heavy lifting imprisoned or killed.
 
Top